344 RAMSAY H, TRAQUAIR ON THE 
Munster’s genus Globulodus, founded upon rounded pedunculated teeth from 
the Kupferschiefer, was cancelled, and merged in Platysomus, AGAssiz having 
also previously expressed a suspicion that these teeth appertained to the last 
named genus. Sir Pui. also considered his views as to the Pycnodont nature 
of Platysomus to be completely corroborated by the form and arrangement of 
the scales. For he had made the important discovery that the so-called 
“dermal ribs” of the Pycnodonts were in reality nothing more than thickenings 
of the anterior margins of the scales, obliquely sliced off above and below for 
articulation with the adjoining scales of the same dorso-ventral band. Pointing 
out that a similar conformation was to be found in the high and narrow scales 
of Platysomus, he maintained that the squamation as well as the dentition 
justified the incorporation of that genus with the Pycnodont family. 
In this view AGassiz concurred, and in a letter quoted by Sir Puiuip says, 
that the “teeth are conclusive evidence for placing Platysomus with the 
Pycnodonts.” It must at the same time be remembered that Acassiz himself 
had previously stated that the jaws of Platysomus were armed with “ petites 
dents en brosse tres-pointues,” and that in Platysomus gibbosus “on apercoit 
quelques petites dents au bord du maxillaire supérieur.”* And with regard to 
Globulodus, he had also, besides suspecting its identity with Platysomus, ex- 
pressed himself as follows with regard to its supposed Pycnodont affinities— 
“Nous connaissons du moins dans la famille des Lepidoides les genres Tetra- 
gonolepis et Dapedius, dont les dents également petites sont plus on moins 
renfiées au sommet ; mais je ne connais point de Pycnodontes qui aient des dents 
pédiculées comme celles du genre Globulodus,” t 
As regards EHurynotus, Sir Pattie GREY-EGERTON announced in the following 
year { that it also had obtuse teeth, having received from HucuH MILLER a 
letter on the subject, with a cast of a specimen from Fifeshire, showing some 
rounded palatal teeth im situ. He, however, hesitated to remove Hurynotus to 
the Pycnodont family, and stated regarding its dentition—“ These” (the teeth) 
“at first sight would seem to indicate a Pycnodont, but a comparison of the 
dentition of this family with other fishes, having blunt rounded teeth, especially 
with Lepidotus and Tetragonolepis, shows that there is so great a difference in 
the arrangement of the teeth in the two families, that even without the test of 
microscopic examination, the true affinities of the fish can be determined.” 
Accordingly Sir Puiiip retained Lurynotus as a Heterocercal Lepidoid, admit- 
ting, however, that its dentition, as well as that of Amblypterus macropterus 
(Rhabdolepis, Troschel), as ascertained by GoLpFuss, invalidated the definition of 
that family given by AGAssiz. 
* Poissons Fossiles, vol. ii. pt. 1, p. 165. + Ib. p. 203. 
{ Qu. Journ. Geol. Soc. London, vi. (1850). 
